Abortion

[Thanz]

It seems to me that most of the posters in this thread have assumed away the trickiest issue (indeed, the only issue) in the abortion debate. Is the fetus a "human", deserving of all of the same rights as you an I, while still in the uterus of the mother?

It is my understanding that all of the genetic material and coding for the child has been determined within weeks of conception. Eye colour, hair colour, etc. It's all in there. This has led those on the anti-abortion side to conclude that the fetus IS a human life, worthy of those protections. It is not just a scientific conclusion, but also a moral and emotional one.

Those on the pro-choice side argue that the fetus is not human, as (in part) it relies on the mother for all of its needs. Thus, the right of the mother to choose is paramount.

I think (though I may be wrong) that the law grants protection to the fetus when the fetus reaches the point of viability (that is, can survive outside the uterus.) To me, this is an easy decision and an easy place to put the dividing line.

The hard part is deciding whether a pre-viability fetus is in fact a human life. This is the only decision. If one comes to the conclusion that the fetus is a human life, one cannot support the right of a mother to "choose" whether to end that life, any more than she could choose to throw her baby into the river.

If one comes to the conclusion (as it seems most of the people posting in this thread have) that the fetus IS NOT a human life, then it is perfectly logical for the woman to have the right to choose.

For the majority of anti-abortion activists, it has nothing to do with female oppression. It has to do with whether their belief that the fetus is a human life.

 

[toddjh]

Dang it, I agree with almost everything everyone is saying.

This really is not as much fun without at least one fervent anti-abortion person in here.

I'm not anti-abortion, but I do feel differently from a lot of people here, so I'll speak up.

I don't think the "a woman has a right to control her own body" argument stands up. It's certainly not the only thing that needs to be considered -- if a woman were to "control her body" in such a way that she refused to feed her child, she would be accused of neglect. If she "controlled her body" to stab someone with a knife, she would be guilty of homicide. I consider this a non-issue in the abortion arena, honestly.

To me, the only issue is whether the fetus has human-type consciousness. Before that, the fetus is either completely unconscious, or has, at best, animal-type consciousness (and we certainly have no problem killing animals for a variety of reasons, including convenience). The best information I've been able to locate says that a fetus starts exhibiting distinctly human-like brain activity at around twelve weeks. Therefore, I think that abortion after that period is definitely suspect. I certainly wouldn't do it if I were a woman, and I wouldn't encourage anyone else to, either.

I also disagree that current abortion laws give the woman significantly more reproductive freedom than the man. It takes two people to reproduce, and the man knew (or should've known) when he had sex that there was a chance that pregnancy could result. There's always a choice.

Jeremy

 

[Upchurch]

If she is 100% anti-abortion, you have a normal sex life, and you only plan one biological child, I hope she is 100% pro-contraception.

That's rather personal, but yes.

If the couple wants a child badly enough and they have exhausted all other possibilities, they will eventually consider it.

I know, but I don't understand why it's such a last resort.

 

[Akots]

It seems to me that most of the posters in this thread have assumed away the trickiest issue (indeed, the only issue) in the abortion debate. Is the fetus a "human", deserving of all of the same rights as you an I, while still in the uterus of the mother?

It is my understanding that all of the genetic material and coding for the child has been determined within weeks of conception. Eye colour, hair colour, etc. It's all in there. This has led those on the anti-abortion side to conclude that the fetus IS a human life, worthy of those protections. It is not just a scientific conclusion, but also a moral and emotional one.

Obviously the easily verified factors take precedence over any philosophical or religious issues; will the mother or child survive if the birth carries through? Would giving birth endanger them? Will a defect cause the child to die before birth? Then, it's an issue of mercy killing, or sacrificing an undeveloped human for a mature one. Very prickly problem, and one I wouldn't wish on anyone.

Those on the pro-choice side argue that the fetus is not human, as (in part) it relies on the mother for all of its needs. Thus, the right of the mother to choose is paramount.

Bleh. My brother has diabetes; he'd last maybe a week or two without taking two or three needles a day. I was born prematurely, and underweight; if it hadn't been for the hospital, i would have died minutes after birth. To this day, I still have a tiny bald spot where they put the nutrient tube in my head.

Dependance on the mother doesn't make a valid point for anybody.

I think (though I may be wrong) that the law grants protection to the fetus when the fetus reaches the point of viability (that is, can survive outside the uterus.) To me, this is an easy decision and an easy place to put the dividing line.

This is law, and not philosophy; laws can differ between governments. Though understandably, you can't just put law on hold and wait for the philosophers to come up with something convincing.

The hard part is deciding whether a pre-viability fetus is in fact a human life. This is the only decision. If one comes to the conclusion that the fetus is a human life, one cannot support the right of a mother to "choose" whether to end that life, any more than she could choose to throw her baby into the river.

I'd have to say that viability would be the practical point tomake laws on the subject, but it should not be the deciding factor philosophically speaking.

If one comes to the conclusion (as it seems most of the people posting in this thread have) that the fetus IS NOT a human life, then it is perfectly logical for the woman to have the right to choose.

For the majority of anti-abortion activists, it has nothing to do with female oppression. It has to do with whether their belief that the fetus is a human life.

Well... maybe yes, and maybe no... i draw the "zealot" line here at refusing an abortion that kills either or one or both of the mother and child... if your STILL anti-abortion in such a situation, then your more concerned about asserting your viewpoint than actually doing the most good.

 

[Akots]

I don't think the "a woman has a right to control her own body" argument stands up. It's certainly not the only thing that needs to be considered -- if a woman were to "control her body" in such a way that she refused to feed her child, she would be accused of neglect. If she "controlled her body" to stab someone with a knife, she would be guilty of homicide. I consider this a non-issue in the abortion arena, honestly.

This is largely the issue of being responsible for another life... does someone have the right to kill themselves? Is the mother's right to choose important enough to accept the repercusions?

Again, this argument depends on the situation. It doesn't adress wether killing a fetus is the same as killing an adult. Though it is an important point.

To me, the only issue is whether the fetus has human-type consciousness. Before that, the fetus is either completely unconscious, or has, at best, animal-type consciousness (and we certainly have no problem killing animals for a variety of reasons, including convenience). The best information I've been able to locate says that a fetus starts exhibiting distinctly human-like brain activity at around twelve weeks. Therefore, I think that abortion after that period is definitely suspect. I certainly wouldn't do it if I were a woman, and I wouldn't encourage anyone else to, either.

I mostly agree with this, but i'll have to go one step further... tjhe issue is wether humans have a soul. Animals can be self concious, and we don't mind slaughtering them. As well, if an inseminated ova has ABSOLUTELY no way to sense it's surroundings, it is not concious...

The question is not wether you are destroying an organism that has recorded information regarding it's experiences an dsurroundings, and then formed a sense of input/output. It's wether you are killing an entity that has a human soul.

That's the religiosu group's argument, and it's what pro-choice people are really fighting against; if they aren't, then they are bashing their heads against the brick wall of fundamental religion. A biological answer won't satisfy a religious stance on if/when a soul is concieved.

I also disagree that current abortion laws give the woman significantly more reproductive freedom than the man. It takes two people to reproduce, and the man knew (or should've known) when he had sex that there was a chance that pregnancy could result. There's always a choice.

Jeremy

I don't think this is literally about being able to control the population; more like, "controling the philosophical issues, and thereby controling the implications."

If anti-abortionists end up getting their law the way they want it, it "proves" that humans have a soul at such-and-such time, thus validating the rest of their religion by association. Though I have no doubt that some people are genuinely, honestly concerned about the idea that each aborted fetus is a slain human soul.

 

[Yahzi]

Ebola

I said I was generally against abortion.

I will concede that, in a perfect world, there would be no abortions. However, in a perfect world, contraception would always work when used correctly.

However, life is very precious.

That's the problem - it's not. Human life, like evertything else, obeys the laws of economics. It's value is inversely related to it's rarity.

There are way, way too many people on the planet right now. If there were only a handful of people, struggling to survive in a hostile environment, then every pregnancy would be greeted with joy. Any woman would gladly lay aside whatever career she had to bring another child into the world, because children would be so incredibly precious to society that it would trump any other path to success. This is how we lived for 3 million years.

Today, we tell women to send their kids to daycare and go get a job. Children are no longer precious to society - and never will be again, unless the human reproduction system undegoes dramatic evolution or science goes away.

(Note: I am not advocating a return to primitiveness!)

It is insane that, given the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country, and the number of abortions performed, we can't do something to persuade more women to give their future children a chance at a life with a loving couple who desparately want a child.

It's not insane, it's just a reflection of economics. What I think is insane is that we have so many fertility clinics. But wealth means choice, and so really those are just a reflection of economics too.

Upchurch

we will have no more than one biological child

You and your wife are allowed two. If everybody has one kid to replace themselves, then the planet will survive. And if your second kid is a set of twins, that's ok too. It's the people that want to have more than one per person that are greedy.

If she is 100% anti-abortion, you have a normal sex life, and you only plan one biological child, I hope she is 100% pro-contraception.

You both do understand that contraception is not 100%, yes? Abortions are a necessary complement to the contraceptive strategy. I know a guy who got snipped, and 10 years later had another child. (Yes, it was definitely his!)

MRC_Hans

To make it illegal is to throw a lot of luckless women into the hands of quacks

Or France, as the rich will always be able to fly to more liberal places. (Ed - must... resist... French... joke)

Thanz

It seems to me that most of the posters in this thread have assumed away the trickiest issue (indeed, the only issue) in the abortion debate. Is the fetus a "human", deserving of all of the same rights as you an I, while still in the uterus of the mother?

The fetus is not a human being, it is a not a citizen, and (as I stated in the very first post) even if it was it doesn't matter. We have not assumed it away, but rather shown how it doesn't matter. Throwing your baby in the river is an act against another person; deciding not to share your blood supply is an act of personal determination even if it has consequences on another person. The two are wholly different.

when the fetus reaches the point of viability (that is, can survive outside the uterus.) To me, this is an easy decision and an easy place to put the dividing line.

Except that it is a moving target. Science keeps changing it. The decision of when to extend rights to a person is a political one, nto a scientific one. Birth is not an entirely arbitrary dividing line, since as animals we are programmed to respond to babies. We are not programmed to respond to 12 week old fetuses, even if they could be raised in a vat. To me, the easist place to put the dividing line is where it's been for the last 3 million years. But I'm conservative like that.

For the majority of anti-abortion activists, it has nothing to do with female oppression

This is false, and I have the evidence to prove it: how many pro-lifers are pro-birth control? How many want to hand out condoms in schools? How many want sex education in schools?

There was one pro-life guy in New England that came to the conclusion that the best way to prevent the tragedy of abortion was by promoting contraception. They promptly kicked him out.

If I go up to a pro-lifer and say, I have a pill that will prevent %99 abortions, he'll jump for joy. But if I say I have a pill that will prevent %99 of pregnancies, he'll start lecturing me on how sex should have consequences. That's pretty telling, isn't it?

Toddjh

I don't think the "a woman has a right to control her own body" argument stands up.

Your examples are without merit. To perform an act of violence against another person is not a privacy issue. To fail to perform a duty is not a privacy issue, either. Abortion is neither of these: abortion is merely the denial of use of your private property to another person. (assuming fetus were persons, which they aren't.)

Your argument only makes sense if you assume that a woman inhierits a duty to the fetus by virtue of getting pregnant. But if she uses birth control, then she has done everything reasonable to indicate that she does not want to get pregnant. Thus, she cannot be coereced into assuming that duty. If she takes reasonable precautions, it can't be her fault, thus she can't be stuck with the duty. This is a well-established principle of law.

If you fail to build a fence large enough to keep me out of your house, my climbing into your house does not mean you have to feed me for the next nine months. The fact that you built a fence is sufficient to preserve your right to your property. In fact, you don't even have to put a fence, do you?

To argue otherwise is to say that if a woman has sex, she automatically must assume the risk of pregnancy - that pregnancy is not something one is allowed to avoid. To argue for that is to both deny women choices, and to dramatically restrict the number of times men will get laid.

There's always a choice.

If one of the choices is, "stop having sex," then I disagree. This is not a choice. The government is limited by the undue burden clause, and I absolutely garauntee you that "not having sex" is an undue burden. Since we have the technological means available to have sex and avoid pregancy, by what right can the government force upon us this undue burden? To protect a potiential citizen? No... the whole point of undue burden is that they can't pass laws that are an undue burden for any reason. Why not take away everything you make over minimum wage and use it to feed the starving in the rest of the world? Doesn't the life of a person trump the government's limits? The answer is no, and thank God for that. Actually, thank the Enlighnment, but hey, it's a figure of speech.

AKots

Dependance on the mother doesn't make a valid point for anybody.

Your examples are not relevant to the issue. There is no legal grounds that would allow me to chain you down and force you to share your internal organs with another person for nine months. Hence, there can be no legal grounds for doing it to someone else.

Keep in mind that the ultimate punishment for a neglectful parent is removal of the child. If you fail your duty, we remove your duty: we do not enslave you to your duty.

It's wether you are killing an entity that has a human soul.

Souls are supernatural, religious entities. No humans have souls, because they don't exist. You are correct that life-at-conception is really a way of encoding a religious view into law. It should be opposed for that reason, among others.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

I am perfectly fine with abortion as a neccesity (i.e. cases of rape, incest and times when it is needed to save the mother). Beyond that, aren't contraceptives cheeper? You would think the merciless hand of capitolism would have swept this issue into non-existance.

 

[toddjh]

Your examples are without merit. To perform an act of violence against another person is not a privacy issue. To fail to perform a duty is not a privacy issue, either. Abortion is neither of these: abortion is merely the denial of use of your private property to another person. (assuming fetus were persons, which they aren't.)

Begging the question. Whether fetuses are people is exactly what is at issue here.

Isn't food you buy at the grocery store your private property also? Is denial of food to a child a privacy issue?

Your argument only makes sense if you assume that a woman inhierits a duty to the fetus by virtue of getting pregnant. But if she uses birth control, then she has done everything reasonable to indicate that she does not want to get pregnant. Thus, she cannot be coereced into assuming that duty. If she takes reasonable precautions, it can't be her fault, thus she can't be stuck with the duty. This is a well-established principle of law.

I disagree. If a man impregnates a woman, and she decides to carry the baby to term, then he is financially responsible even if he took reasonable precautions against it.

If you fail to build a fence large enough to keep me out of your house, my climbing into your house does not mean you have to feed me for the next nine months. The fact that you built a fence is sufficient to preserve your right to your property. In fact, you don't even have to put a fence, do you?

Ah, people seeds. Keep in mind that I am not opposed to abortion in general. I am only opposed to abortion when the fetus is sufficiently developed that it might have human-like consciousness. It's an area that needs more research, but I'd rather play it safe.

Have all the abortions you want in the first trimester, which is when most of them take place anyway.

To argue otherwise is to say that if a woman has sex, she automatically must assume the risk of pregnancy - that pregnancy is not something one is allowed to avoid.

Go ahead and avoid it -- you're allowed.

If one of the choices is, "stop having sex," then I disagree. This is not a choice.

I agree. But if you really, really don't want to reproduce, you can get snipped. I did so myself, at age 25, for precisely that reason.

But think about it in another way. You talk about taking "reasonable precautions." But what is reasonable? Are condoms reasonable? They have a mean time between failures of only around five years. Can a couple who uses condoms for birth control for a period of five years reasonably claim that they didn't expect a pregnancy to occur in that period? Same thing for ten years with single-hormone pills, and twenty years for combined hormone pills. Since most people are sexually active for longer than that, how reasonable is it to expect that a pregnancy won't occur?

Jeremy

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You would think the merciless hand of capitolism would have swept this issue into non-existance.

Interesting metaphor... Maybe change ' swept ' to ' beat '..

 

[Thanz]

Interesting post, Yahzi. I'll only directly comment on the portions directed at me.

Thanz

The fetus is not a human being, it is a not a citizen, and (as I stated in the very first post) even if it was it doesn't matter. We have not assumed it away, but rather shown how it doesn't matter. Throwing your baby in the river is an act against another person; deciding not to share your blood supply is an act of personal determination even if it has consequences on another person. The two are wholly different.

I strongly disagree when you say it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person or not. It is the central question. I don't buy the "act of personal determination" argument at all. Assuming that the fetus is a person, with the same rights as everyone else, one has to consider the balance of the rights of the fetus with the rights of the mother. On the one hand, we have a mother who (outside of rape) chose to engage in behaviour that could lead to pregnancy. Her interest is not going through with the pain and inconvenience of pregnancy. On the other, we have the fetus, morally innocent, who only wants to live. In my books (once we have established that the fetus is a human life) the right of the fetus to life trumps the right of the mom to "personal determination".

The fact is, you cannot do whatever you wish in your acts of personal determination. You have freedom of choice of action only so far as those actions do not infringe on the rights of others. If the fetus has the same rights as everyone else, you cannot violate the fetus right to life (the most basic of human rights) and dismiss it as an act of personal determination. IMO, if the fetus is considered a human life, there is no difference between an abortion and leaving the baby on the ground to die after birth.

All of which does not determine whether the fetus IS a human life, but your dismissal of the issue is not warranted.

Except that it is a moving target. Science keeps changing it. The decision of when to extend rights to a person is a political one, nto a scientific one. Birth is not an entirely arbitrary dividing line, since as animals we are programmed to respond to babies. We are not programmed to respond to 12 week old fetuses, even if they could be raised in a vat. To me, the easist place to put the dividing line is where it's been for the last 3 million years. But I'm conservative like that.

Why does it matter if it is a moving target? What is so special about full term? My friends had their baby close to 3 months premature, and it is still their baby. They respond to it the same way. I would imagine that no potential parents (who are pregnant because they want to be) describe the fetus as a "fetus", even when that is the accurate term. Most, if not all, will refer to it as the 'baby'.

This is false, and I have the evidence to prove it: how many pro-lifers are pro-birth control? How many want to hand out condoms in schools? How many want sex education in schools?

There was one pro-life guy in New England that came to the conclusion that the best way to prevent the tragedy of abortion was by promoting contraception. They promptly kicked him out.

If I go up to a pro-lifer and say, I have a pill that will prevent %99 abortions, he'll jump for joy. But if I say I have a pill that will prevent %99 of pregnancies, he'll start lecturing me on how sex should have consequences. That's pretty telling, isn't it?

I will partially concede on this point. You are right that many anti-abortion activists are also anti-sex education and birth control. But I don't think that their positions are OVERTLY for the purpose of oppressing women. I don't know if they would all think that we need their moral rules to keep women "in line", rather, I think that they truly believe that the fetus is a human life.

As for promoting contraception, I agree with you - there is no reason for NOT promoting contraception between consenting adults. It is also easy top promote abstinence and contraception at the same time, while still advocating the position that sex CAN have consequences. You would think that if people really wanted to stop abortion, they would go to the source and stop unwanted pregnancies. So, on that point, I agree with you.

 

[Upchurch]

Upchurch

You and your wife are allowed two. If everybody has one kid to replace themselves, then the planet will survive. And if your second kid is a set of twins, that's ok too. It's the people that want to have more than one per person that are greedy.

Only interested in one natural child. It's a personal decision that we made together.

You both do understand that contraception is not 100%, yes?

Of course. We know that nothing in life is certain. I was just expressing our plans. If we accidently deviate from said plan, so be it.

Abortions are a necessary complement to the contraceptive strategy.

Necessary? Only if the strategy is more important to you than having the baby. Neither my fiancee nor I think that it is.

 

[Yahzi]

(sigh) I should make shorter posts, so I don't lose everything when Netscape crashes.

Toddjh

Isn't food you buy at the grocery store your private property also? Is denial of food to a child a privacy issue?

You still do not understand the difference between privacy and duty. When you have a child, you accept a duty. Once accepted, it is binding.

Having sex is NOT the same as accepting the duty of raising children. Just because some religous types think that people who have sex should be punished by running the risk of pregnancy is no reason to create law. We have the technological ability to have sex without having children. If you do not want to enjoy that technology, then fine, don't; but by what grounds do you deny me the right to do so?

Name any other situation in which I can legally bind you to share your internal organs for nine months.

I am only opposed to abortion when the fetus is sufficiently developed that it might have human-like consciousness.

I don't see you demanding that every American be taxed until there is no more starvation in the world. You seem pretty quick to dispense with women's bodies to protect something that *might* be conscious, but you seem equally quick to protect your pocketbook from the obviously conscious and starving people around the planet.

But what is reasonable?

There is an entire body of law dedicated to undue burden. It's not really that hard of a concept. Keep in mind that many anti-abortion types are the same people that tried to argue that licensing guns, or even just having a 1-week waiting period, was an undue burden.


Thanz

Assuming that the fetus is a person, with the same rights as everyone else,

Under what conditions do I have the right to make use of your internal organs for 9 months?

In my books (once we have established that the fetus is a human life) the right of the fetus to life trumps the right of the mom to "personal determination".

You have freedom of choice of action only so far as those actions do not infringe on the rights of others

Yet the fetus has the right to infringe on your rights?

Who set up the right-trumping game? It's a simple question: do you have the right to make use of my internal organs. No? Then end of story: I don't care what rights of yours are violated in the process of protecting my rights. That's not my problem.

You agree that we have rights; you just want to take them away when you feel sorry for somebody else. Hey, I'm all down for socialism, but shouldn't we be trumping our rights for the people that already exist?

On the one hand, we have a mother who (outside of rape) chose to engage in behaviour that could lead to pregnancy. Her interest is not going through with the pain and inconvenience of pregnancy. On the other, we have the fetus, morally innocent, who only wants to live

In this single paragraph is everything I said. Look at the tone of this and tell me it's not about punishing those fornicating sluts.

1. It's not just pain, you idiot, it's actual danger. Pregnancy is dangerous. Life-threatening. I suggest you avoid dismissing pregnancy as an "inconvience" in the prescence of women, unless you particularly enjoy being clobbered.

2. Chose to engage in behaviour? If you go skiing, can the doctor not treat your broken leg because you chose to engage in risky behaviour? Maybe you wish less women would choose to have sex with you. That's fine, but let them make their own choices about me, ok?

3. Morally innocent? Who cares? Since when did moral innocence gain you the right to trump my rights? There are billions of poor people who are morally innocent, but I don't see you asking the courts to give them your property.

But I don't think that their positions are OVERTLY for the purpose of oppressing women. I don't know if they would all think that we need their moral rules to keep women "in line", rather, I think that they truly believe that the fetus is a human life.

Sure they do. But even if it were, it doesn't justify their position. It provides emotional support ("won't somebody think of the children!"), but it provides no logical support. This is exactly what you would expect from a diversionary position.

I don't care about their overt propaganda. I care about what they are really after.


Upchurch

Necessary? Only if the strategy is more important to you than having the baby. Neither my fiancee nor I think that it is.

I'll go to the wall to defend your right to choose whatever strategy you want... if you'll defend mine.

The thing the anti-abortionists can't get is that allowing the government to take your personal property and give it to people who need it is like, socialist, you know? And I think that socialism (to the extreme of denying private property rights) has been pretty well shown to be not so good.

Come to think of it, most of those anti-abortionists agree with me.
So what the hell are they going on about?

Oh right... gotta keep the woman down. And the man up. After all, without abortion laws, men have zero influence over childbirth.

Consider the unfairness of this scenario: A man and woman both have sex. Both use contraceptives. The woman gets pregnant anyway. Now the woman must decide: should she get an abortion or accept an 18 year committment? The man must decide... waith, the man has no decision. If he wants the kid and she choses abortion, tough luck. If he doesn't want the kid and she keeps it, tough luck. She gets to unilaterally decide for the man whether or not he will accept an 18 year committment.

Can you name any other contract negotian that is so one-sided? This is clearly unfair.

But balancing nature's injustice on the broken backs of women's right is less fair.

 

[evildave]

The Fertility "Off Switch"

If you're against abortion, then I have the PERFECT solution for it.

1. Fund research into simple, reversible sterilization.

2. Have every single baby reversibly sterilized before leaving the hospital.

Within 20 years or so, both mommy and daddy HAVE to have a simple procedure done to get their fertility turned on, in order for conception to be possible.

No children getting pregnant.

No women going off their pills in an attempt to "fix" a broken relationship with a baby.

No intoxicated 'accidents'.

No more "unwanted" conceptions.

No more abortions at all.

Fight for and fund this solution, and I'll back you every step of the way.

Just try to ban something without comming up with a viable alternative, and you can shove your "morality" up your rectum. People crying for prohibition to solve every problem have no credibility at all.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

Interesting metaphor... Maybe change ' swept ' to ' beat '..

I was serious. It seems to me that contraceptives, which are scands cheaper than abortions would have beat them out ages ago, with the exception of abortions to which I have no oppisition.

But for some reason that isn't the case.

 

[toddjh]

You still do not understand the difference between privacy and duty. When you have a child, you accept a duty. Once accepted, it is binding.

You seem to be suggesting that some magical event occurs at birth that suddenly means the parents have accepted the duty of having the child. What is it? Note that I'm discussing ethics, not legality. I'm fully aware that the law confers special status on a baby after birth; what I want you to address is the logical reason for this distinction, which seems quite arbitrary to me.

Anyway, your views in this area are not necessarily incompatible with mine. All I'm saying is that the window during which you have to decide whether to accept that duty should end when the fetus develops human-like consciousness, rather than at birth. Since most abortions already take place during the first trimester, your view and mine would have no practical difference in 95% of the cases.

Having sex is NOT the same as accepting the duty of raising children. Just because some religous types think that people who have sex should be punished by running the risk of pregnancy is no reason to create law.

Er, I think it's biology that's responsible for sex running the risk of pregnancy.

We have the technological ability to have sex without having children. If you do not want to enjoy that technology, then fine, don't; but by what grounds do you deny me the right to do so?

On the grounds that a human being may be killed in the process, of course.

The difference between me and the anti-abortionists, before you ask, is that I suggest that a rational, scientific basis for determining when a fetus should be considered a human being.

Name any other situation in which I can legally bind you to share your internal organs for nine months.

If you can perform an abortion without severely traumatizing the fetus's body, I'd like to hear about it. It all comes back to whether and when the fetus should be considered a human being with human rights. If there comes a time before birth at which the fetus can be considered a human being, then it also has a body that should be legally protected, and abortion (as I understand it) is invasive enough to qualify as assault with a deadly weapon against the fetus, completely independently of the woman's body.

If you disagree with me about where the dividing line of humanity lies, that's fine -- we'll agree to disagree until the problem can be better defined (though I still see some value in erring on the side of caution, especially since it would make no practical difference in the vast majority of cases). But if you concede that a fetus should be considered a human being at any point during pregnancy, I don't see how you can say it's as simple as a woman controlling her own body.

I don't see you demanding that every American be taxed until there is no more starvation in the world.

I'm not responsible for starvation in the world. If I got someone pregnant, I would be responsible for that. "Not if you take reasonable precautions," I hear you saying. "It's an unexpected consequence." But as I pointed out before, most of the common forms of birth control have a mean time between failures of far shorter than most people's fertile years -- using condoms, it's as low as five years, and older methods like diaphragms, spermicides, etc. are even worse. This means that the probability of a sexually active woman getting pregnant at some point in her life while using any of the most common forms of birth control is still well over 50%. It's more likely to happen than not -- how can you argue that this is an unexpected consequence?

If those odds are unacceptable to people, there are other options. IUD's, for example, are far more effective than the pill. Or use condoms and the pill together. There is always sterilization if it's that important. I'm willing to reconsider the issue in cases where the lifetime risk of pregnancy is very small (with a vasectomy, for instance, the mean time between failures is upwards of a thousand years). But are you really claiming that people who make a conscious decision to use a relatively unreliable form of birth control which will result in a lifetime probability of pregnancy of over 50%, despite the presence of more effective alternatives, aren't responsible when the inevitable finally results?

That's like saying that, if I decide to start shooting a gun off into the distance, it's not my fault when a bullet finally kills a guy, because the probability of each single bullet hitting anyone is small.

You seem pretty quick to dispense with women's bodies to protect something that *might* be conscious, but you seem equally quick to protect your pocketbook from the obviously conscious and starving people around the planet.

First, be careful what you assume. Second, I have no interest in "dispensing with women's bodies," whatever that means, any more than I have an interest in preventing "women's bodies" from, say, pushing a knife into someone's neck.

There is an entire body of law dedicated to undue burden. It's not really that hard of a concept.

Then it should be easy to answer my question, and I'd appreciate it if you could please make the effort. Start by addressing the fact that common forms of birth control are more likely than not to result in pregnancy during a woman's life.

Keep in mind that many anti-abortion types are the same people that tried to argue that licensing guns, or even just having a 1-week waiting period, was an undue burden.

Since I am not one of those anti-abortionists, and I'm not attempting to defend them (I think they're just as nutty as you do), I don't think that's relevant here.

Jeremy

 

[Ceinwyn]

I am a woman, and I have had an abortion.

I'm not going to go into the details of it. I'm simply glad that the option was there for me, safely and medically, and I hope it is always there for every woman, no matter age, race, class or nationality.

 

[Denise]

Whether or not there are enough babies for adoption is irrelevent to the topic of abortion. Slavery is illegal, I think it's horrible that there are not enough slaves to satisfy my slave owning need.

Are all methods of birth control 100 percent? No, there have been pregnancies after sterilization, although it is clear that the sterilization did not work.

There are many poor women with kids in our society. Child support? BWAHAHA, my ex owes over 50 grand. I don't get a dime. And, by the way, for all those moralists out there I was married to before I got pregnant and he wanted Lorelei so bad. But he has only seen her once since she was an infant and now she's nine.

How anyone can say it's so easy for a woman to give a child up for adoption is amazing to me. It's also amazing to me that people think that they have a "right" to someone's unborn children for the adoption market.

To anyone who thinks they have a right to stop a woman from having an abortion, I have a right to your kidney. Give it to me now. You only need one, and hey, you have two. Quit being selfish and give me your kidney. I swear I will take good care of it, yep.

Silly, I don't think so.

I like the idea of reversable steralization, and I think money should be spent to research this idea more than it is being researched now. Much less side effects than say the pill.

Many women who have abortions have other children to support, and certainly they think of those children first. It's not easy to have an abortion, but it's very hard to be a single parent and try to pay the medical bills of another child, the time off work day care etc. So should your first child suffer because of an unplanned pregnancy? Please.

Only the event of rape or incest? Otherwise a woman deserves to be impoverished? Please.

Bad, bad women! Punish them! Mayhaps they should wear burquas also.

 

[Q-Source]

Great posts Denise and Buki.

I would like to hear more opinions from women. It seems like men are always discussing the most relevant issues about what we should or should not do with our bodies.

Yazhi,

Your arguments are excellent. I am really enjoying your posts!

Jeremy,

I don't think Abortion is a matter of deciding when the fetus is a person or not. What makes a fetus a person?
How can we measure his consciousness?, or his soul (if we have souls)?

Abortion has to do with women's rights and economics (as Yazhi mentioned). Ultimately, anti-abortionists don't care about the consequences that represent to raise un-wanted children in a world with limited resouces.

Q-S

 

[ebola]

Yahzi wrote:

Ebola

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said I was generally against abortion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I will concede that, in a perfect world, there would be no abortions. However, in a perfect world, contraception would always work when used correctly.

The first time was an honest mistake. This time you have deliberately quoted me out of context. What I said was:

I said I was generally against abortion. I did not say that I favored making it illegal. There is a world of difference.

This appears in the very first post on this topic. For the record, I favor keeping abortion safe and legal in this country. It should be legal in cases of rape. It should be legal in cases of incest. It should be legal to save the life of the mother. It should be legal if a chosen method of birth control failed. It should be legal if the TWO people having sex were simply careless. It should be legal if the day of the week ends in "y" and the woman wants one. I don't know how I can be more clear. Legal, legal, legal.

MRC Hans had an excellent point when he said:

Whether legal or illegal, provoked abortions have always and will always happen. To make it illegal is to throw a lot of luckless women into the hands of quacks.

The alternative, as someone else mentioned, was that a safe abortion would only be available to those affluent enough to travel to someplace where it is legal.

Denise wrote:

How anyone can say it's so easy for a woman to give a child up for adoption is amazing to me. It's also amazing to me that people think that they have a "right" to someone's unborn children for the adoption market.

I cannot imagine how difficult and agonizing a mother's decision to give up her child must be. I never said it was easy. But the worry that there will not be a family to adopt her child should not factor into this decision, because it simply isn't true. As I said in my first post:

I cannot describe how much I admire the birth mother's choice.

I emphasize the word choice.

Of course nobody has the right to someone's unborn child for adoption. The people who run around abortion clinics saying "Don't kill your baby" or " I'll take it" are total loons. They are, for the most part, people who cannot sympathize with the people they are antagonizing for any number of reasons, and their rhetoric is empty.

Eric

 

[MRC_Hans]

I find two things enjoyable about this thread. One is the many well-thought opinions presented. The other is the good and sensible tone. I have to admit I took a deep breath before opening it the first time, but I'm glad to say, entirely without reason. Thanks everybody!

Hans